[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201221204511.4cd0d048@heffalump.sk2.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:45:11 +0100
From: Stephen Kitt <steve@....org>
To: "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)" <alx.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] close_range.2: new page documenting close_range(2)
Hi Alex,
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:33:06 +0100, "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)"
<alx.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
> On 12/21/20 8:24 PM, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 15:00:00 +0100, "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)"
> > <alx.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/18/20 5:58 PM, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> +This program executes the command given on its command-line after
> >>> +opening the files listed after the command,
> >>> +and then using
> >>
> >> s/using/uses/
> >
> > It’s the same form as “opening”: “after opening ... and then using”. The
> > overall sequence is “open”, “close_range”, “execve”.
>
> Ahhh. Then I think the comma is misleading.
> What about the following?:
>
>
> On 12/18/20 5:58 PM, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > +.PP
> > +This program executes the command given on its command-line after
> > +opening the files listed after the command,
> > +and then using
> > +.B close_range
> > +to close them:
>
> This program executes the command given on its command line,
> after opening the files listed after the command
> and then using *close_range()* to close them:
Yes, that works better.
I’ll follow up with a v5 with just that change.
Regards,
Stephen
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists